I did not warm to the couple sitting opposite us on our Met line journey. The elegant lady with an air of entitlement looked up from her copy of Metro to make a complaint to her husband.
“It says here Traitors is more popular than Strictly now. It shows the state of the world, doesn’t it?”
He wasn’t buying it.
“Does it?”
Couldn’t agree more, I thought. Does it matter if one trashy, disposable reality TV show is more popular than another? When our daughters were younger, we used to watch X-Factor – one of the few programmes we would watch together.. No less trashy and disposable, of course, but the stakes could be high, and some contestants achieved worldwide fame. But Strictly? A winner is declared, and so what? Many people love it and find it very entertaining, but I have never been able to watch more than two minutes of this hyped up, whooping celebration of mediocrity and third division “celebrities”.
Nevertheless her comment stayed with me and floated in my mind. A few days later, I caught a few minutes of The Inner Circle. During this afternoon quiz show the contestants build up a cash prize pot. At the end of the show the two finalists have to make a decision based on the “Prisoner’s dilemma” – each must decide separately (and excuse me, but these are the words the designers of the show chose) whether to “split” or shaft”. If they both vote to split, the pot is shared equally: if one votes to split and the other to shaft, the shafter takes the lot. If both vote to shaft, they go away empty handed.
The format is clever, in that there is guaranteed drama at the end of each episode: a penalty shootout, as it were. But how nasty. Are we supposed to feel happy for the successful “shafter”? Or, more likely, gloat over their shared failure if they both “shaft”? This is not what I want from my licence fee.
Worse was Deal or No Deal, in which contestants displayed greed and blind optimism but zero skill, always being urged to hold out for more by their peers egging them on. I will admit to watching it a couple of times, and I’m sure I wasn’t the only viewer who enjoyed seeing them go home with 50p.
In contrast to Deal or No Deal, Pointless requires knowledge from its contestants, and strategy in judging which answer will score fewer points. It is predictable, but it is a gentle and positive format. Alexander Armstrong is unfailingly polite and charming with his guests, no matter how dim-witted: “A US state beginning with a letter from the first half of the alphabet: let’s see what happens when we say…Texas”. We get to know and like the contestants during the show and are always pleased when they win the jackpot.
But in the field of “reality” TV, Traitors has proved hugely popular, with a format based on plotting, deception and skulduggery. The quotes from contestants who are “banished” or “murdered” can be amusing: “It hurts to be stabbed in the back like that,” “I can’t believe you would do this to me” etc. Eh? What’s the show called, again?
Whereas Strictly, for all its banality and self-celebration, is at least a joyful party vibe. Traitors, by contrast, appeals to the worst in us. So I apologise if I scoffed, lady on the train. Perhaps you have a point. You were right to worry about the state of the world.
Ramblings 
Leave a reply to Clive Ffitch Cancel reply